America is not the only nation to suffer from terrorism. Countries like India lose thousands of lives to Islamic fundamentalism each year, without the Western world taking any notice.
George Bush has more or less ignored India, a vibrant, democratic, pro-Western nation. Why?
How do you eliminate terrorism with terrorism? Because Pakistan is at the root of terrorism. The Taleban came out of Pakistani madarasas and were able to take nearly the whole of Afghanistan with the help of Pakistani officers. Pakistan has made jihad a national enterprise, not only hitting India, but also training militants who struck in the US, Bosnia and Chechnya. By lifting the economic sanctions on both India and Pakistan, the US has also -- once again -- put on the same footing two nations which, whatever their respective merits (all is not evil in Pakistan), cannot be compared.
India, a giant of a nation, is a bastion of freedom in an Asia torn by fundamentalism and the shadow of Chinese hegemony. Pakistan, a small country, always on the verge of bankruptcy, has been for most of its independence under military dictatorships. This equating Pakistan and India is an old perverse English strategy which had the purpose of dividing Muslims and Hindus so that the British could rule. It is sad to say that 200 years later this policy is still alive in the minds of Western leaders.
The third error is to think that by killing Osama bin Laden and bombing Afghanistan, he is going to solve -- partly or fully -- the problem of Islamic fundamentalism. Bush has also invited Muslim leaders to the White House, telling them that his fight is 'not against Islam, but against terrorism.' The first thing Bush should understand is that the problem is not with Muslims, who are like all other human beings in the world -- some of are very good, some are okay and some are bad -- but with Islam, a religion which teaches that there is only one God and that jihad is justified to convert others to the true religion.
The US might ultimately succeed in killing bin Ladin, but will not other bin Ladens surface elsewhere in the world?
Finally, there is one factor which is being completely overlooked. What is China going to do?
At the times of the attacks, Beijing was on the verge of strengthening its ties with the Taleban. Since then, it has closed its borders with Afghanistan for fear that some of the terrorists might spill into Xinjiang and worsen the already simmering Islamic problem there.
But China is a cold calculator and it will do only what serves its interests regardless of the moral consequences. We have seen how it armed Pakistan to counter India and gave Islamabad the technology to build nuclear weapons -- and even the capability to deliver them, thanks to North Korean M-11 missiles. Will China ultimately side -- even if temporarily -- with the Muslim world, when it starts uniting against American imperialism? Only then will the possibility of a third World War really emerge.
I don't get it. What does India need from G-dub? Doesn't a nation of 1 billion have an army and other resources with which to redress their differences with Pakistan? If that's how they feel, India should have "gotten it on" with Pakistan long before the USA got involved over there for separate, more complex reasons.
Besides that, what's with being an American and yet having one's main and only foreign policy hardon over India, of all places?